I’m surprised by some of the comments here. So much hatred for the teenagers but very little reflection on the responsibility of us as adults to create a world which is safe and understandable for young people. The real story here is not about the actions of the boys, it is about the actions of the people operating the websites they used, the big tech companies who created the tools and the governments (which we adults vote for) failing to properly regulate any of this. Generative AI is a disaster for young people and it was adults who created and unleashed it on them.
Would the impact have been any different if they had used photoshop?
Since when could someone do this in Photoshop with a couple of clicks and zero training, for free and on any device? Since when has Adobe specifically marketed Photoshop as a tool for creating sexually explicit images?
Since when could someone do this … with a couple of clicks and zero training, for free and on any device?
You know, somebody probably said the exact same thing about Photoshop when it first came out? Back when cutting up photos and pasting them together was a thing. Then again, somebody probably said the same thing about the advent of photography too, during the days of woodcuts and oil paintings.
Since when has Adobe specifically marketed Photoshop as a tool for creating sexually explicit images?
Fuck knows. It’s not like I made any such claim, you just decided to put up a strawman argument.
How is it a “strawman” when it relates specifically to the topic being discussed? A simple web search can bring up countless examples of generative AI tools that are designed to “undress” or “nudify” women. You seem to believe there is zero difference between using one of these sites and using Photoshop, so I am asking when Adobe marketed Photoshop as an undressing tool. The ease of use and access is the key difference here that you are trying to avoid acknowledging.
My question was very simple and limited in scope:
Would the impact have been any different if they had used photoshop?
I did not make any sweeping comments, and I would appreciate if you stopped trying to claim things on my behalf.
In addition to probation, the teens will also be required to attend classes on gender and equality, as well as on the “responsible use of information and communication technologies,”
…
What?
Have you not interacted with teenage boys?
I can think of not much more of a better way to teach them there are no consequences and they can keep doing this as long as they smirk and say they’re sorry whenever they get caught
The minors were charged with 20 counts of creating child sex abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims’ moral integrity
Punishment or not, those charges are still scary. I think the probation and courses are a good addition.
I don’t understand why using AI is what makes this illegal. I don’t know the laws in Spain, but would it be illegal if they used a pencil or a paint brush? Seems like a weird line to draw if not.
The minors were charged with 20 counts of creating child sex abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims’ moral integrity.
The article doesn’t make the claim that the AI is what makes it illegal, simply that AI was used. It’s literally the second sentence. Indeed, it goes on to highlight that there are legal novelties prosecuting the use of AI.
As far as I understand; it’s not the tools used that makes this illegal, but the realism/accuracy of the final product regardless of how it was produced.
If you were to have a high proficiency with manual Photoshop and produced similar quality fakes, you’d be committing the same crime(s)
creating child sex abuse images
and
offenses against their victims’ moral integrity
The thing is, AI tools are becoming more and more accessible to teens. Time, effort, and skill are no longer roadblocks to creating these images; which leaves very very little in an irresponsible teenagers way…
Which still seems kinda dumb. How realistic is too realistic? You could make a legal standard of “photography-like”, or something, just to define who to convict, but you still haven’t really justified why.
The sentence in this case is just classes, though, so I’ll leave my pitchfork in the shed.
Did… Did you just ask; why creating photo-realistic sexually explicit material of real children, should be illegal?
Keep in mind these were other kids their age. We’re not talking about pedo stuff here.
All the recent stuff about deepfakes feels a bit moral-panic-y to me. I think we should have a better reason than just ick before anyone gets thrown in jail.
We’re not talking about pedo stuff here.
Do you want an explanation of why creating and sharing sexually explicit material of other people without consent is problematic and damaging, and especially for children?
This is a really good idea. Perhaps this is what should be happening in the first place rather than resorting to direct legal enforcement, which can be problematic and damaging, especially for children.
If you cant understand that sharing naked photos of people is bad, then you probably should have to face the court systems.
Like what? I don’t care how horny you are as a teenager, it takes a real fucking idiot, and a huge shitstain to go and share those photos. They absolutely deserve the book being thrown at them.
Yes.
I can see why we’d prohibit it, but somehow doing it in writing without involving the subject is pretty accepted (see: every fanfiction involving characters played by a specific real actor), and mentally doing it is like an informal human right.
I’m honestly not trying to be obtuse here. It seems arbitrary to me. People have pictured me in all kinds of horrifying situations, I’m sure (probably more violent then sexy, but still). I’m not bothered, nor would I be if they made a collection of depictions (unless they sent some to me).
They shared sexually explicit images in whatsapp groups. You consider that similar to having personal thoughts nobody will know of or written stories?
“were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence.”
Have you dismissed this quote? I don’t know where to start explaining how it’s different from what you described because of how far off it is. I have no idea where the baseline is to argue from.
Humans are a social creature. We form groups, and want to be part of groups. Teens are especially vulnerable with a developing personality, social norms, and social belonging. Breaking norms and violating common personal barriers and control of self-expression and self-presentation is deeply violating in a vulnerable phase of life.
They didn’t create a personal collection. They shared in their social groups.
